This is a supplement to the paper “Finitary Algebraic Logic” [1]. It includes corrections for several errors and some additional results. MSC: 03G15, 03G25.

We consider arrow logics (i.e., propositional multi-modal logics having three -- a dyadic, a monadic, and a constant -- modal operators) augmented with various kinds of infinite counting modalities, such as 'much more', 'of good quantity', 'many times'. It is shown that the addition of these modal operators to weakly associative arrow logic results in finitely axiomatizable and decidable logics, which fail to have the finite base property.

Using a combinatorial theorem of Herwig on extending partial isomorphisms of relational structures, we give a simple proof that certain classes of algebras, including Crs, polyadic Crs, and WA, have the `finite base property' and have decidable universal theories, and that any finite algebra in each class is representable on a finite set.

The class \ of t rue p airing a lgebras is defined to be the class of relation algebras expanded with concrete set theoretical projection functions. The main results of the present paper is that neither the equational theory of \ nor the first order theory of \ are decidable. Moreover, we show that the set of all equations valid in \ is exactly on the \ level. We consider the class \ of the relation algebra reducts of \ ’s, (...) as well. We prove that the equational theory of \ is much simpler, namely, it is recursively enumerable. We also give motivation for our results and some connections to related work. (shrink)

The logical theory which is called thecalculus of (binary) relations, and which will constitute the subject of this paper, has had a strange and rather capricious line of historical development. Although some scattered remarks regarding the concept of relations are to be found already in the writings of medieval logicians, it is only within the last hundred years that this topic has become the subject of systematic investigation. The first beginnings of the contemporary theory of relations are to be found (...) in the writings of A. De Morgan, who carried out extensive investigations in this domain in the fifties of the Nineteenth Century. De Morgan clearly realized the inadequacy of traditional logic for the expression and justification, not merely of the more intricate arguments of mathematics and the sciences, but even of simple arguments occurring in every-day life; witness his famous aphorism, that all the logic of Aristotle does not permit us, from the fact that a horse is an animal, to conclude that the head of a horse is the head of an animal. In his effort to break the bonds of traditional logic and to expand the limits of logical inquiry, he directed his attention to the general concept of relations and fully recognized its significance. Nevertheless, De Morgan cannot be regarded as the creator of the modern theory of relations, since he did not possess an adequate apparatus for treating the subject in which he was interested, and was apparently unable to create such an apparatus. His investigations on relations show a lack of clarity and rigor which perhaps accounts for the neglect into which they fell in the following years. (shrink)